website

Monday, 24 March 2014

I'm a big supporter of the
freemium business model. The removal of the initial financial barrier to entry,
alongside the simplicity of many freemium titles has opened the door for masses
of new consumers to get into playing games; something which is undoubtedly a
fantastic thing for our industry.

If we look back to the 80s,
there are parallels we can draw.

Lots of relatively small indie
games were released which are comparable to the level of simplicity we see in
many mobile titles today; as technology and gamers desire for more complex
experiences grew, so did the games produced, ultimately leading to the more
mature console gaming demographic we have today - something I very much hope
will be repeated in the mobile arena. Which is precisely why, when I see
implementations of freemium mechanics such as those presented in Dungeon
Keeper, I get quite infuriated.

Back then we also had a
comparable level of saturated content as we’re now seeing in the mobile space.
Many publishers were pushing out poor quality titles and failing to respect
their consumers, which ultimately led to the game industry crash of 1983.

And in 2014, my big worry is
that we're at risk of repeating that very same mistake.

Take Dungeon Keeper for
example - without wishing to pick on it - I find that it’s just one of an
increasing number of titles whose implementation of freemium mechanics comes
across as somewhat dismissive of those unwilling to pay.

While it's apparent that it’s
still generating significant revenue (as is clear from the games featuring in
the top grossing charts) I worry that it's an example of prioritising
short-term gains over long-term benefit for the industry. When it can take up
to 24 hours to remove a single 'square' of map, I’d argue that it makes the
experience beyond simply an 'inconvenience' for non-paying customers; it makes
it largely un-playable.

The undoubtedly high
percentage of customers unwilling to pay are ultimately left with a sour taste
in their mouth; and for many, it risks degrading their views of freemium titles
as a whole. In turn, damaging potential future uptake of games utilising this
model.

This becomes all the more
apparent when reading some of the games reviews; users are not simply
complaining about the game, They’re complaining about the industry, the model
and are frequently stating (in no uncertain terms) that it’s putting them off
freemium as a whole.

Freemium titles should
intrinsically be accessible for all consumers – paying or non-paying.

There have been some great
examples of freemium done right. Games like League of Legends, where consumers
can play frustration-free for as long as they like; but are encouraged to
purchase through offering compelling additional content. Users who don't pay are
respected, even valued, on account of the competitive, viral and social
benefits their involvement brings to the experience for everyone playing.

So, as an industry let’s not
allow our desire to make more money in the short term take precedence over the
potential alienation of our customers. Paying or otherwise, we must respect our
users. If we fail to do so, we run the very real risk of losing them in the
long term.

Put simply, we need to learn
from our historical mistakes. It is our responsibility to do better.

Adam Green is MD of Assyria Games and
chairs the judging panel for the Indie Dev Showcase at the Develop Conference.
This year’s Showcase submissions open on 2 April 2014.